Opinions on Favorite Canon Wide Angle Lens

[acp]

I'm looking to purchase a wide angle lens for my Canon 7D. I'd like opinions on others favorite wide-angle lenses. Positive features and maybe what is not a deal breaker about a lens, but what could perhaps maybe be better.

I recently rented a 24-70 f/2.8, didn't really care for it.

Thanks!

 

[analog.universe]

How wide is wide? And how much do you want to spend?

Sigma 8-16 f/4-5.6, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 are all nice for really really wide.
Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon is legendary, and might well be the best wide lens available for SLR systems.
Canon 17mm f/4 and 24mm f/3.5 TS-E lenses are the best wide angles Canon makes, but the 24mm f/1.4L isn't too shabby either.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

On the 7D, 24mm isn't really very wide. 17mm is wide and 10mm is ultra wide.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, would be a very good zoom lens that gives you a wide to normal range.
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a very good ultra wide angle zoom.
Sigma has a several ultra wide angle lenses that would work on your camera. Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

 

[analog.universe]

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a very good ultra wide angle zoom.http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/wide-angle-zoom-lenses

I agree with everything you said Mike, except this part. Canon charges a lot of money for this lens, and when you compare it with offerings from competing manufacturers, it really doesn't appear to be worth the money. It's an alright lens, and will take great photos.. but if you're going to spend $800 or whatever it is, I think there are a lot of other options that are much better (and most of the time less expensive).

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, I left out the price comparison...the Canon 10-22mm is significantly more expensive than a similar Sigma lens. But that's not uncommon. The Canon 24-70mm is signifiacntly more expensive than the Sigma 24-70mm. The Canon 70-200mm F2.8 is significatnly more expensive that the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8.

But *I think* that in all those cases, the Canon is actually the better lens. Is it better enough to justify the price difference? I don't know.

 

[analog.universe]

For the 24-70, and 70-200, I understand why they're more expensive. The 10-22 I think only gets away with it because of the Canon logo. : )

 

[Big Mike]

When I bought my 10-22mm, every review I read, put it at the top of the list of ultra wide angle (for APS-C) lenses. There was even a reviewer or two that wished it was a Nikon lens because it was better than anything available for a Nikon.

At that time, I believe that the current Sigma 10-20mm was either not out yet, or just coming out....so most/all the comparisons were to their older wide angle lens, whichever that was.

If I was buying now, it would be a harder choice, but I still maintain that the Canon 10-22mm is a very high quality lens.

I even know a pro photographer who modified his Canon 10-22mm so that he can use it on his 1Ds mkIII, (vignetting and all) because it like it better than all the other lenses he's tried, including the 16-35mm L.